THE  AMERICAN  INSTITUTE  OF  SACRED 
LITERATURE 


War  and  Religion  Pamphlets 
No.  3 


3a  tlfp  Olnliipn  SJulaJinrli- 
ablp  brtutfptt  Nattona? 

By 

• ERNEST  DEWITT  BURTON 


For  copies  of  this  pamphlet  for  distribution  at  three  cents 
each,  address  the  American  Institute  of  Sacred 
Literature,  Hyde  Park,  Chicago,  III. 


Copyright  1918  By 
The  University  of  Chicago 


IS  THE  GOLDEN  RULE  WORK- 
ABLE  BETWEEN  NATIONS? 


I.  What  the  Golden  Rule  Means 
between  Individuals 

The  Golden  Rule  between  individuals 
is  not  altogether  as  simple  of  under- 
standing and  easy  of  application  as  it  is 
sometimes  thought  to  be.  If  two  people 
were  living  alone  on  an  isolated  island 
without  other  inhabitants  and  without 
outside  communication,  for  each  to  do 
to  the  other  as  he  wished,  or  ought  to 
wish,  that  other  to  act  toward  him,  for 
each  to  love  his  neighbor  as  himself, 
would  be  a task  easily  defined,  however 
difficult  it  might  be  actually  to  perform. 
But  the  moment  we  emerge  into  the 
actual  world,  to  the  moral  difficulty  of 
really  loving  our  neighbor  as  ourselves, 
there  is  added  the  intellectual  difficulty 
of  determining  what  such  regard  for  the 
interests  of  others  equally  with  our  own 
really  calls  for  in  the  complicated  rela- 
tions and  circumstances  of  life.  For  in 
the  actual  world,  just  as  there  is  no 
isolated  individual  who  can  define  what 
is  right  in  terms  of  himself  only,  so  there 


is  no  isolated  pair  who  can  settle  their 
conduct  and  relations  to  one  another 
without  regard  to  the  interests  and  wel- 
fare of  other  people.  Each  of  us  is  a 
member  of  any  number  of  pairs  and 
larger  groups,  and  in  our  attempts  to  do 
to  another  as  we  would  that  other  should 
do  to  us  we  can  never  ignore  or  forget 
those  many  others  to  whom  the  Golden 
Rule  demands  that  we  should  do  as  we 
would  that  they  should  do  to  us. 

The  application  of  the  Golden  Rule 
is  not  like  paying  a debt.  If  I owe  you 
fifty  dollars,  that  is  a matter  between 
you  and  me.  I owe  it  without  reference 
to  anyone  else.  Even  this  statement  has 
its  qualifications,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
bankrupt,  but  broadly  speaking  it  holds. 
The  very  universality  of  the  Golden 
Rule,  on  the  other  hand,  changes  its 
character,  and  demands  that  in  applying 
it  to  any  one  person  I shall  not  forget 
those  others  to  whom  also  it  applies.  I 
cannot  decide  what  I ought  to  do  for 
other  people’s  children  without  consider- 
ing the  welfare  of  my  own  children.  I 
cannot  decide  what  to  do  for  the  public 
without  remembering  my  family,  and 


3 


vice  versa.  I cannot  determine  my  duty 
to  the  poor  neighbor  on  my  left  hand 
without  remembering  the  equally  poor 
family  on  my  right  hand. 

And  this  makes  it  evident  that  the 
so-called  Golden  Rule  is  not  in  actual 
application  a rule  at  all.  It  is  a prin- 
ciple of  wide  application,  and  in  the 
actual  relations  of  life,  because  they  are 
so  complex,  difficult  to  apply.  It  means 
that  in  determining  my  conduct  I shall 
count  that  I am — as  in  fact  I am 
whether  I recognize  it  or  not — a mem- 
ber of  the  community,  and  that  the 
welfare  of  every  other  member  of  the 
community  is  as  valuable  as  my  own, 
and  that  I shall  shape  my  conduct 
accordingly. 

Negatively,  it  means  that  I shall 
abstain  from  conducting  my  own  affairs 
to  my  advantage  regardless  of  the  wel- 
fare of  others.  It  forbids  me  to  engage 
in  a business  which,  however  profitable 
to  me,  is  harmful  to  the  community,  or 
to  conduct  a business,  in  itself  legitimate, 
in  a way  that  makes  it  injurious  to  my 
fellows.  It  forbids  me  to  engage  in  any 
practice  or  habit  which,  though  pleasur- 


4 


able  to  me,  brings  damage,  unhappiness, 
or  ruin  to  another. 

Positively,  it  means  not  only  that  I 
shall  be  polite  and  courteous  to  others, 
because  I myself  like  to  be  treated  with 
courtesy,  not  only  that  I shall  be  a 
gentleman  alike  to  women  and  to  men, 
alike  to  superiors,  equals,  and  inferiors, 
but  that  I shall  plan  and  order  my  whole 
life  in  such  way  that  it  shall  make  the 
largest  contribution  to  the  welfare  of 
the  community.  It  demands  that  I 
shall  consider  who  are  really  members 
of  my  community,  how  wide  its  extent 
is,  and  shall  take  into  account  in  my  plan 
of  life  all  who  are  really  fellow-members 
with  me  of  a community,  sharers  of  a 
common  life. 

It  does  not  require  that  I shall  assume 
responsibility  for  the  welfare  of  the  world 
— that  is  not  only  absurdly  impossible 
but,  if  it  were  possible,  would  deprive 
others  of  a responsibility  and  of  a joy 
in  it  which  belongs  to  them — but  it  does 
require  that  I shall  take  my  share  of 
that  responsibility. 

It  does  not  demand  that  I shall  dis- 
regard my  own  welfare  or  happiness — 


5 


I am  to  love  my  neighbor  as  myself — but 
it  means  that  I shall  merge  these  in  the 
pool  of  the  common  welfare  and  find  my 
joy  in  the  common  joy.  What  king 
worthy  of  the  name  could  find  happiness 
in  his  own  comfort  and  ease  while  his 
people  were  wretched  and  starving  ? 
We  easily  recognize  his  duty  to  find  his 
happiness  with,  not  separate  from,  his 
people.  The  Golden  Rule — or,  as  James 
calls  it,  the  Royal  Law — bids  each  of  us 
be  kingly  in  our  attitude  toward-  all  our 
fellows. 

The  wider  our  relationships,  the 
broader  our  vision,  the  more  complicated 
does  the  problem  become.  Within  the 
walls  of  a home  it  is  fairly  easy  to  apply 
the  rule.  Happy  that  family  in  which 
the  children  under  the  influence  of 
parental  precept  and  example  acquire 
almost  unconsciously  the  habit  of  think- 
ing as  quickly  of  the  other’s  comfort  as 
of  their  own,  and  so  prepare  themselves 
for  the  more  diflScult  applications  of  this 
principle  in  a larger  world. 

In  a farming  community,  when  each 
family  has  its  farm  and  there  is  little 
conscious  relation  to  the  outside  world. 


6 


ordinary  conditions  will  call  for  little 
more  than  a negative  application  of  the 
principle.  No  farmer  will  steal  his 
neighbor’s  crop,  nor  allow  his  stock  to 
trample  it  down  and  destroy  it.  But  if 
a barn  with  its  accumulated  feed  for  the 
winter  is  consumed  by  fire,  or  a farmer 
falls  ill  and  cannot  plow  his  field  or  sow 
his  seed,  there  will  be  opportunity  and 
need  for  a positive  application  of  the 
principle — for  a counting  of  a neighbor’s 
welfare  as  dear  as  our  own  and  foregoing 
something  of  one’s  own  comfort  for  the 
sake  of  his. 

But  the  day  is  sure  to  come  when  the 
farmer  discovers  that  the  group  of 
farmers  is  not  the  whole  of  the  world,  or 
of  his  community.  Not  far  away  is 
another  farming  community  whose  in- 
terests are  in  part  identical,  in  part  in 
competition  with  his  own.  There  is  a 
market  town  with  which  he  must  trade,  a 
city  to  which  his  crop  eventually  goes, 
a land  across  the  sea  which  needs  his 
wheat  or  his  beef,  and  whose  need  helps 
to  fix  the  price  he  receives  for  it.  And 
thus  he  discovers  that  in  fact  he  is 
a citizen  of  the  world,  his  relations 


7 


are  international,  his  community  not 
local  but  state-wide,  nation-wide,  world- 
wide. 

And  what  is  true  of  the  farmer  is  true 
of  us  all.  We  are  citizens  of  the  world, 
and  if  we  take  into  account  actual  rela- 
tionships we  must  face  the  question 
whether  the  Golden  Rule  is  workable 
between  nations. 

There  is  in  fact  no  ground  on  which 
we  can  urge  its  application  between 
individuals  which  will  not  also  demand 
that  we  consider  how  it  would  apply 
between  nations.  The  nations  of  the 
world  are  interrelated,  more  and  more 
closely  so.  Their  relations  as  nations 
react  most  powerfully  on  the  happiness 
and  welfare  of  individuals  and  communi- 
ties. If  these  are  valuable,  it  is  impera- 
tive that  we  consider  how  they  will  be 
affected  by  applying  to  nations  the 
principle  which  experience  has  shown  to 
be  most  advantageous  between  indi- 
viduals and  smaller  groups. 

Let  us  consider  then 


8 


II.  The  Application  of  the  Golden 
Rnle  between  Nations 
When  at  Peace 

Manifestly,  as  between  individuals, 
this  will  demand: 

Negatively,  that  a nation  abstain 
from  any  course  of  action  which,  however 
much  to  its  advantage,  will  work  injustice 
to  a neighbor  nation  or  inflict  on  it  any 
damage  save  only  such  damage  as,  being 
incidental  to  some  larger  good,  any 
nation  ought  to  be  willing  to  suffer  for 
the  common  good.  If  my  neighbor 
owns  a city  lot  next  to  mine,  it  may  de- 
prive me  of  some  light  which  I now  enjoy 
if  he  builds  upon  it.  Yet  I could  not 
ask  him  to  leave  it  unoccupied  that  I 
might  enjoy  this  unearned  increment 
of  advantage,  nor  would  the  Golden 
Rule  demand  that  he  should  do  so,  since 
to  do  so  would  be,  in  excess  of  justice,  to 
save  me  from  a lesser  loss  at  cost  of  a 
larger  one  inflicted  on  himself.  So  the 
extension  of  a nation’s  commerce  in 
wholly  legitimate  ways  may  incidentally 
diminish  the  profits  of  another  nation. 
Yet  as  the  world  is  now  organized  such 


9 


free  competition  could  not  be  forbidden, 
nor  can  it  be  regarded  as  contrary  to  the 
Golden  Rule,  since  it  is  the  best  method 
which  we  have  yet  discovered  of  con- 
tributing to  the  greatest  good  of  the 
greatest  number. 

But  if  this  principle  does  not  forbid 
free  competition,  it  manifestly  does  for- 
bid a war  of  aggression,  the  denial  of  the 
rights  of  small  nations  because  they  are 
small,  the  exploitation  of  a backward 
nation  by  a more  advanced  one  for  the 
benefit  of  the  latter  regardless  of  the  wel- 
fare of  the  former,  the  invasion  of  a coun- 
try by  trades,  like  that  in  alcoholic 
liquors  and  opium,  which  tend  to  destroy 
its  happiness  and  welfare. 

But  with  a nation  as  with  an  indi- 
vidual the  Golden  Rule  is  far  more  than 
prohibitory  and  the  positive  applications 
are  at  least  as  important  as  the  negative. 
If  a boy  in  your  community  were  sud- 
denly left  without  father,  mother,  older 
brother,  or  sister  it  would  be  a miserably 
inadequate  application  of  the  Golden 
Rule  for  the  neighbors  to  abstain  from 
beating  him,  and  leave  him  as  best  he 
could  to  feed  and  clothe  and  educate 

lO 


himself.  The  Golden  Rule  calls  for 
positive  action. 

And  positively  applied  to  nations  the 
principle  demands  that  we  organize  and 
conduct  our  national  life,  not  with  a view 
to  profiting  as  much  as  we  can  at  the 
expense  of  other  nations,  but  to  making 
our  largest  possible  contribution  to  the 
world’s  welfare. 

This  will  demand  a healthy  life  at 
home.  In  a sense  this  is  fundamental 
to  everything  else.  Our  own  people  are 
valuable.  Loving  one’s  neighbor  nation 
as  one’s  self  does  not  forbid  but  requires 
that  we  shall  consider  the  welfare  of  our 
own  people.  How  can  a nation  that  is 
indifferent  to  the  welfare  of  its  own 
youth,  its  own  laboring  classes,  its  own 
dependents,  exert  any  strong  and  health- 
ful influence  on  other  nations?  It  will 
neither  set  an  example  worth  following — 
and  between  nations  as  between  indi- 
viduals example  is  one  of  the  most 
effective  influences — nor  possess  the  men 
and  the  resources  with  which  to  make 
a direct  contribution  to  the  welfare 
of  other  nations.  The  Golden  Rule 
between  nations  demands  that  each 


nation  shall  do  its  utmost  to  maintain 
at  home  a pure,  strong,  healthful  life, 
all  classes  working  not  each  for  its  own 
interests  but  all  for  the  interests  of  all. 
Our  liquor  traffic,  our  organized  vice, 
our  luxury,  our  social  injustice,  our 
conflicts  between  classes,  even  our 
personal  vices  and  selfishness,  are  not 
only  defects  of  our  own  life,  blots 
upon  our  own  civilization;  they  are 
also  violations  of  the  Golden  Rule  be- 
tween nations. 

But  we  have  not  fulfilled  the  royal 
law  when  we  purify  and  develop  our 
own  national  life.  The  nation  that  lives 
for  itself,  however  high  its  ideals  or 
achievements  for  itself,  lacks  the  essen- 
tial characteristic  of  a Christian  nation. 

We  must  be  ready  to  share  our  knowl- 
edge with  other  nations,  and  indeed 
make  active  efforts  to  transmit  it  to 
them.  This  is  at  bottom  the  motive  and 
the  justification  of  the  missionary  enter- 
prise. We  have,  as  an  inheritance  from 
the  past  and  an  acquirement,  a religion 
and  a morality  which,  however  imper- 
fectly we  have  embodied  them  in  our 
national  life,  are  the  best  of  our  posses- 


sions.  We  have  reason  to  know  that 
they  would  be  good  for  other  nations. 
An  essential  element  of  them  is  the 
altruistic  spirit — the  spirit  of  the  Golden 
Rule.  We  can  but  pass  these  on  to 
those  who  need  them — not  in  a spirit  of 
conquest,  not  as  something  that  we  force 
upon  them,  but  as  a precious  posses- 
sion which  we  share  with  them,  at 
cost  to  ourselves,  indeed,  but  with  a 
reflex  benefit  that  outweighs  all  possible 
cost. 

The  principle  that  applies  to  the 
Christian  message,  the  Christian  prin- 
ciple, applies  also  to  all  our  knowledge  as 
far  as  it  can  be  of  use  to  other  peoples. 
Because  of  this  we  establish  schools  in 
which  we  teach  not  only  the  Bible  and 
theology  but  the  physical  sciences, 
medicine,  history,  political  economy,  and 
political  science.  For  these  too  are  in- 
heritances and  acquisitions  which  the 
nations  of  the  world  need  only  less  than 
they  need  the  Christian  message  itself, 
and  which  we  could  not  withhold  with- 
out infidelity  to  that  message. 

But  as  we  carry  to  other  nations 
our  knowledge — and  by  the  way  learn 


13 


from  them  in  return — it  is  incumbent 
on  us  also,  as  need  arises,  to  give  them 
our  money.  When  San  Francisco  is 
shaken  by  an  earthquake  and  ravaged 
with  fire,' Boston  and  Chicago  come  in- 
stantly to  her  rescue,  as  a generation 
ago  all  the  cities  of  the  land  came  to  the 
rescue  of  Chicago  and  Boston.  But 
national  frontiers  are  no  longer  im- 
passable boundaries  to  our  applications 
of  the  Golden  Rule.  An  earthquake 
in  Sicily,  a terrible  disaster  in  Halifax, 
a famine  in  China  call  forth  instant  and 
generous  help.  And  few  acts  of  a 
nation  are  more  effective  in  creating  in- 
ternational friendship  than  these  speedy 
responses  to  the  cry  of  human  need.  In 
a private  letter  received  from  Nova 
Scotia  soon  after  the  Hahfax  explosion 
occur  the  following  sentences: 

I tell  you,  we  shall  never  be  able  to  say 
enough  about  the  wonderful  help  the  States  have 
sent — the  response  was  so  spontaneous  and 
everything  done  even  before  it  was  asked  for. 
It  brought  tears  to  aU  our  eyes  when  they  came 
and  told  us  a little  of  what  had  been  done  by 
the  United  States  on  Friday  night.  You  know 
we  have  always  been  a trifle  contemptuous  of 
the  United  States  since  the  war  on  account  of 
their  prolonged  delay  in  entering  the  war.  But 


14 


never  again!  They  can  have  anything  I’ve  got, 
and  I don’t  think  I feel  any  differently  from 
anyone  else  down  here. 

The  following  words  from  the  Mon- 
treal Star  are  in  the  same  vein: 

Almost  before  the  smoke-pall  over  the  city 
of  Halifax  had  blown  away,  the  generous  heart 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States  had  found 
practical  answer  to  that  black  signal  of  distress. 
Before  the  people  of  the  stricken  city  had  them- 
selves realized  the  magnitude  of  the  catastrophe, 
relief  train  after  relief  train  was  tearing  north- 
ward loaded  with  everything  that  intelligent 
sympathy  could  suggest  for  the  relief  of  suffering 
and  manned  by  skilful,  warm-hearted  men  and 
women,  eager  as  they  were  able,  whose  desire 
was  to  be  of  service.  Behind  them  Congress, 
representing  the  whole  United  States,  pledged 
a munificent  sum  to  aid  the  sufferers.  The 
explosion  at  Halifax  was  a national  catastrophe 
felt  throughout  Canada.  The  thanks  of  all 
Canada,  therefore,  go  out  to  those  who,  in  this 
hour  of  trial,  were  so  quick  and  so  magnificently 
generous  in  their  aid.  “He  gives  twice  who 
gives  quickly,”  is  an  old  saying,  true  as  ever 
today.  Canada  will  not  soon  forget  that  in 
time  of  great  loss  and  great  grief  American 
sympathy,  American  skill,  and  American  money 
were  given,  not  only  twice,  but  tenfold. 

But  the  Golden  Rule  calls  for  more 
than  example,  impartation  of  knowledge, 


15 


and  gifts  of  money.  It  demands  a 
friendly  interest  in  the  welfare  of  other 
nations — a recognition  of  their  indi- 
viduality and  their  rights  which  will  in 
general  allow  them  to  develop  their  own 
national  life  without  constraint  from  us, 
along  the  lines  of  their  own  national 
genius  and  ability.  This  is  one  of  the 
most  precious  possessions  alike  of  indi- 
vidual and  of  nation.  The  orphan  boy 
needs  care  and  friendship,  but  he  has 
the  right  to  live  his  own  life  if  he  lives 
it  with  due  regard  to  the  rights  of  others. 
No  parent  even  has  the  right  to  con- 
strain his  boy  with  a genius  for  art  to 
become  a merchant  or  a manufacturer, 
nor  the  natural  farmer  to  become  a 
lawyer.  But  if  a parent  may  not  do  this 
with  his  son,  how  shall  one  nation  do  it 
for  another  ? Bigness,  force,  confers  no 
right  of  international  control.  Every 
nation  has  its  own  contribution  to  make 
to  the  world’s  welfare,  and  size  is  no 
measure  of  the  value  of  that  contribu- 
tion. Has  Greece  given  less  to  the  world 
than  Russia,  Palestine  than  China  ? In 
his  last  days  President  William  R. 
Harper  said,  “I  have  never  doubted  that 


i6 


God  had  given  me  a work  to  do  in  the 
world  which,  if  I did  not  do  it,  would  go 
undone.”  How  much  more  true  it  is 
of  nations ! The  nation  that  lays  violent 
hands  on  the  life  and  genius  of  another 
nation,  that  because  of  its  superior  brute 
force  or  larger  armies  says  to  that  other 
nation,  “You  shall  not  live  your  own 
life,  but  shall  accept  my  ideals  and  sub- 
ordinate your  genius  to  mine,”  is  making 
unpardonable  egotism  the  excuse  for 
national  murder  and  international  rob- 
bery. The  world’s  highest  interests  are 
served,  not  by  the  enforced  standardizing 
of  national  life,  but  by  freedom  of  devel- 
opment and  mutual  recognition  of  the 
right  of  every  nation  to  develop  accord- 
ing to  its  own  genius  and  ability. 

But  the  recognition  of  this  right 
leads  naturally  to  recognizing  its  cor- 
relative duty.  For  there  may  arise, 
there  have  arisen,  extreme  cases  of  the 
violation  of  this  principle  on  the  part 
of  a strong  nation  against  a weak,  calling 
for  intervention  on  the  part  of  other 
nations  in  the  interest  of  the  weak.  For 
the  Golden  Rule  is  not,  as  I have  said, 
wholly  a negative  thing.  It  sometimes 


17 


demands  interference  in  defense  of  the 
oppressed.  Some  years  ago  a group  of 
university  professors  returning  home 
from  an  evening  engagement  heard 
shouts  of  pain  and  distress  issuing  from  a 
cottage  that  they  were  passing.  Hesi- 
tating but  a moment  as  to  their  duty, 
they  entered  the  house  and  found  that 
in  a quarrel  between  a father  and  son, 
one  or  both  of  them  intoxicated,  one 
had  stabbed  the  other  dangerously.  A 
part  of  them  remained  to  prevent  further 
injuries,  while  the-  rest  sought  physician 
and  police.  Ordinarily  a man’s  house 
is  his  castle,  which  no  one  may  enter 
unbidden,  but  there  are  limitations  to 
the  rule — the  intervention  of  a superior 
principle.  Ordinarily  if  two  neighbors 
quarrel  the  rest  do  well  to  keep  hands 
off.  But  there  are  times  when  inter- 
vention is  demanded  by  the  rule  of 
love.  So  it  is  with  nations.  There  come 
times  when  one  nation  must  protest 
against  injustice  done  or  threatened 
against  another,  and  must  if  need  be 
sustain  its  protest  with  its  own  army  and 
navy.  I do  not  enter  into  the  discus- 
sion whether  the  manner  of  our  doing 


i8 


it  was  wholly  justified,  but  I believe 
that  our  intervention  in  the  affairs  of 
Cuba  in  1898  was  right  in  principle. 
And  I do  not  hesitate  to  affirm  that 
England  was  wholly  justified  in  coming 
to  the  help  of  Belgium  in  1914.  I only 
regret  that  it  was  not  deemed  practicable 
for  us  to  sustain  Britain  in  that  action 
in  words,  at  least,  if  not  by  force  of 
arms. 

But  this  brings  us  to  the  difficult 
question  whether,  if  one  nation  may  on 
occasion  become  the  friend  and  defender 
of  another,  it  may  also  at  times  become 
its  more  or  less  permanent  guardian, 
guide,  and  protector.  Is  our  course  in 
the  Philippines  justifiable?  Has  Eng- 
land a right  to  b in  India  and  Egypt  ? 
Is  our  recent  recognition  of  Japan’s  pre- 
eminent interest  in  China  right  or  wrong 
in  principle  ? The  question  is  too  large 
to  be  discussed  adequately  in  these 
pages.  I will  only  venture  to  lay  down 
two  principles. 

One  of  these  is  that  the  right  of 
self-governmfent  is  not  inalienable.  In- 
dividuals may  lose  it  by  crime  or  by 
illness  of  body  or  brain.  Families  may 


19 


lose  it  by  incompetence,  and  the  neigh- 
bors or  the  state  be  obliged  to  step 
in.  Cities  may  lose  it  by  riot  and 
murder.  States  may  lose  it  by  the  in- 
competence by  which  they  become 
dangerous  to  themselves  and  to  other 
nations.  Palestine  lost  it  in  63  b.c.,  and 
there  is  more  than  one  utterance  of 
Jesus  to  show  that  he  clearly  recognized 
this  fact  and  warned  his  nation  against 
the  folly  of  attempting  to  cure  internal 
weakness  by  throwing  off  the  external 
power  that  sufficed  in  some  measure  to 
compensate  for  that  weakness.  Korea 
lost  it,  and  though  Japan’s  method  of 
assuming  guardianship  may  be  open  to 
just  criticism  there  is  no  doubt  that  it 
was  necessary  for  some  external  power 
to  do  what  the  Koreans  were  no  longer 
able  to  do  for  themselves. 

The  second  principle  is  that  any 
nation  that  assumes  the  office  of  guar- 
dian to  another  is  bound  to  do  it  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Golden  Rule,  not  for  exploi- 
tation and  self-aggrandizement,  but  for 
the  good  of  the  other  nation  and  of 
other  nations  at  least  as  much  as  for 
its  own.  It  is  bound  scrupulously  to 


20 


regard  the  rights  of  the  dependent  nation 
and  is  under  solemn  obligation  to  ad- 
minister its  guardianship  with  a view 
to  restoring  the  guarded  nation  to  inde- 
pendence or  granting  it  partnership  as 
soon  as  a process  of  education  can  make 
it  fit  for  such  a position. 

I believe  that  in  the  main  we  have 
followed  these  principles  in  Cuba  and  in 
the  Philippines.  If  by  our  recognition 
of  Japan’s  responsibility  in  the  Orient 
we  shall  have  acquired  the  right  to  ex- 
ercise a friendly  watchfulness  over  her 
trusteeship,  and  if  at  the  same  time  we 
shall  be  so  scrupulously  just  and  friendly 
to  Japan  as  to  retain  her  confidence  and 
friendship,  it  may  well  prove  that  we 
have  done  for  the  Orient  the  best  service 
that  at  this  time  it  is  possible  to  render. 
But  it  is  manifest  that  the  whole  situa- 
tion demands  of  us  a measure  of  generos- 
ity, justice,  and  righteousness  to  w'hich 
not  many  nations  of  the  past  have  risen 
and  which  we  have  not  ourselves  always 
attained. 


III.  The  Application  of  the  Golden 
Rule  between  Nations  in 
Time  of  War 

But  is  it  possible  to  apply  the  Golden 
Rule  in  time  of  war,  and  in  particular 
to  nations  with  whom  we  are  at  war? 
Is  not  the  very  fact  of  war  itself  a 
denial  or  suspension  of  the  Golden  Rule  ? 
Of  course  the  party  responsible  for  a war 
of  aggression  violates  the  Golden  Rule. 
But  is  it  possible  for  the  defender  nation 
to  take  up  arms,  and  taking  up  arms  to 
seek  to  conquer  its  aggressor,  and  yet 
to  carry  on  war  in  conformity  with  the 
Golden  Rule  ? The  answer  will  depend 
largely  on  how  one  interprets  the  Golden 
Rule,  and  in  particular  on  whether  one 
takes  into  account  all  the  interests  in- 
volved, or  only  those  of  the  single  nation 
with  which  one  is  at  war.  It  may  indeed 
be  contended  that  in  the  long  run  it  is 
for  the  interest  of  an  attacking  nation 
that  its  scheme  of  conquest  fail.  Just 
as  it  is  a good  thing  for  a young  bully  to 
find  his  match  and  get  a good  trouncing, 
so  it  is  a good  thing  for  a buUying  nation 
to  be  defeated.  In  particular  we  may 
contend  that  it  is  really  in  the  interest 


22 


of  the  German  people  that  the  German 
armies  shall  be  defeated,  and  the  people 
themselves  released  from  the  domination 
of  those  false  ideals  which  have  been 
industriously  bred  into  them  for  forty 
years  and  more.  All  this  is  true  and 
pertinent.  It  is  true  also  that  no  nation 
can  when  attacked  forget  the  interests  of 
her  own  people  and  her  own  posterity. 
The  Golden  Rule  does  not  require  us  to 
consider  the  interests  of  another  nation 
to  the  exclusion  of  our  own — to  love  our 
neighbor  and  not  ourselves.  It  demands 
that  we  shall  take  account  of  her  interests 
equally  with  our  own — itself  a very  large 
demand,  which  sets  a standard  rarely 
attained. 

But  we  shall  never  get  an  adequate 
view  of  the  situation  with  which  the 
world  is  now  dealing  so  long  as  we  think 
simply  in  terms  of  two  nations.  It 
would  be  folly  and  hypocrisy  to  contend 
that  simply  as  between  ourselves  and 
Germany,  and  in  itself  considered, . it 
would  be  a neighborly  act  for  us  to  slay 
her  sons,  and,  if  we  could  reach  them,  to 
destroy  her  cities.  Nor  can  any  defense 
of  such  acts  on  the  ground  of  retaliation 


23 


bring  them  under  the  Golden  Rule.  To 
see  the  situation  in  its  true  light,  we 
must  look  at  it  as  being,  what  in  fact 
it  is,  a world-problem.  In  itself  con- 
sidered, it  is  not  a neighborly  act  to  kill 
the  robber  who  attacks  me  and  my 
family.  But  I can  never  look  at  it  as  a 
matter  simply  between  myself  and  the 
robber.  I must  remember  my  family 
and  the  community  also.  So  in  this  war 
it  was  not  a question  between  Germany 
and  England  in  1914.  England  had 
to  remember  Belgium  and  Erance.  In 
April,  1917,  it  was  not  a question  be- 
tween ourselves  and  Germany — impor- 
tant as  were  the  issues  involved  simply 
from  that  point  of  view.  Had  it  been  a 
matter  between  ourselves  and  Germany 
only  perhaps  the  Golden  Rule  would 
have  demanded  a still  further  endur- 
ance of  wrong  before  we  laid  down  the 
pen  to  take  up  the  sword.  It  is  better 
to  suffer  much  and  long  before  proceed- 
ing to  the  extremity  of  repaying  insult 
with  shells,  and  injury  with  cannon 
shots. 

But  it  was  not  our  own  situation 
alone  or  even  chiefly  that  confronted 


24 


US  and  demanded  action.  It  was  the 
world’s  situation.  It  was  not  a matter 
of  retaliation  for  the  murder  of  the 
Lusitania’s  victims,  or  the  interference 
with  our  commerce.  It  was  inter- 
national law,  which,  slowly  accumulated 
by  centuries  of  effort,  is  the  only  basis  of 
civilized  relationships  of  nations;  it  was 
civilization  itself  that  was  in  danger — 
imminent  and  real  danger.  For  the 
sake  of  France,  to  whom  we  as  a nation 
owed  so  much;  for  the  sake  of  England, 
whose  army  and  navy  far  more  than 
anything  we  had  done  had  thus  far  kept 
us  out  of  war;  for  the  sake  of  Europe 
and  Asia  and  Africa;  for  the  sake  of  the 
unborn  generations  of  Americans,  and 
for  all  those  who  might  in  the  future,  as 
they  had  in  the  past,  find  in  this  country 
a refuge  from  tyranny — it  was  for  all 
these  and  in  obedience  to  the  Golden 
Rule  itself  that  we  went  to  war.  So 
clear  was  the  issue,  so  critical  the  situa- 
tion, so  much  was  at  stake,  that  to  have 
delayed  longer  would  have  been  inexcus- 
able cowardice,  an  unpardonable  viola- 
tion of  the  Golden  Rule,  a selling  of  our 
own  souls  for  gold  and  ease. 


And  having  taken  up  arms  the  Golden 
Rule  demands  that  we  lay  them  not 
down  till  the  ends  for  which  we  have 
taken  them  up  are  achieved.  What  a 
magnificent  example  Belgium  has  set 
for  us  all!  It  has  been  well  said  that 
Belgium  has  indeed  been  a messianic 
nation,  and  the  author  of  the  phrase  was 
undoubtedly  thinking  of  the  suffering 
Messiah  when  he  used  the  word  “mes- 
sianic”—a nation  which  rather  than 
break  her  plighted  word  or  betray  her 
allies  has  endured  sufferings  immeasur- 
able with  a heroism  beyond  all  praise. 
America  with  her  vastly  greater  re- 
sources, with  her  danger  far  less  immi- 
nent, is  now  called  upon  to  face  the 
situation  with  equal  courage,  and  equal 
determination  never  to  lay  down  her 
arms  till  the  righteous  ends  of  the  Allies 
are  achieved,  cost  what  it  may  in  money 
and  in  men.  We  can  afford  to  be 
impoverished,  we  can  afford  even  to 
lay  down  our  lives;  we  cannot  afford 
for  the  future  of  the  world  to  sacrifice 
our  national  soul. 

But  the  Golden  Rule  demands  a 
great  deal  more  than  a willingness  to 


26 


fight  when  fighting  is  necessary.  It 
requires  what  at  certain  points  in  the 
conflict  may  be  more  difficult  than 
fighting.  It  demands  that  we  fight 
without  hatred  and  with  a clear  vision 
of  what  we  are  fighting  for. 

It  was  a recent  immigrant  to  this 
country  from  the  south  of  Europe  who 
entering  the  army  as  a drafted  man  wrote 
back  to  his  friends,  “Hurrah,  I am  a 
soldier  of  the  United  States  army.  We 
shall  fight  the  great  battle  for  universal, 
peace.  We  shall  make  the  great  federa- 
tion of  nations.”  We  ought  all  to  have 
a not  less  clear  perception  of  what  we 
fight  for.  We  are  in  the  business  of 
making  a new  world — a world  without 
hatred,  a world  without  war,  and  there- 
fore without  the  causes  of  war.  We 
must  not,  while  we  fight,  defeat  the 
cause  for  which  we  fight,  by  fighting 
with  hatred.  Not  even  the  German 
must  we  hate.  His  works,  his  principles, 
we  abominate.  But  let  us  not  forget 
that  it  was  only  when  we  saw  those 
hateful  principles  which  he  is  following 
revealed  in  their  full  hatefulness  in  this 
war  that  we  knew  how  hateful  they  were. 


27 


We  were  all  tainted  with  them  in  some 
measure.  Only  when  Germany  openly 
avowed  them  and  embodied  them  in 
terrible  action  did  we  know  how  awful 
they  were  and  repudiate  them.  Then 
let  them  not  come  back  like  the  se'ven 
demons  worse  than  the  first  into  a heart 
swept  and  garnished  with  Pharisaic 
scrupulousness.  If  we  would  really 
practice  the  Golden  Rule,  and  we  must 
if  we  would  create  the  new  world  of 
which  we  have  caught  the  vision,  we 
must  love  not  our  allies  only  but  our 
enemies  also. 

And  this  means  in  turn  that  we  shall 
be  ready  for  peace  when  the  hour  comes. 
Not  for  a peace  that  means  defeat  of  all 
for  which  we  have  fought — not  for  a 
peace  that  is  but  a respite  till  we  are 
forced  to  fight  again.  From  such  a 
peace  God  save  us!  But  we  must  not 
forget  that  it  is  peace  that  we  desire, 
and  as  a nation  we  ought  to  lose  no 
opportunity  to  convince  our  enemies 
that  we  desire,  not  vengeance  but  right- 
eousness, not  the  victory  of  armies  for 
victory’s  sake  but  of  principles  for  the 
world’s  sake.  Nor  is  this  danger  a 


28 


fancied  one.  In  the  reaction  against  the 
very  real  danger  of  a premature  peace, 
there  lurks  another  danger  not  less 
real.  Both  newspapers  and  public  men 
have  sometimes  spoken  as  if  the  war  was 
for  war’s  sake,  and  we  must  shut  our 
eyes  and  ears  to  all  thoughts  of  peace. 
War  till  we  have  achieved  our  end — yes. 
But  let  us  not  forget  that  that  end  is 
peace — a peace  of  the  right  kind. 

Is  the  Golden  Rule  workable  between 
nations  ? With  confidence  I affirm  it  is 
both  more  needful  and  more  workable 
between  nations  than  between  indi- 
viduals. More  needful  because  the  harm 
done  when  nations  do  not  follow  it  is 
upon  a far  vaster  scale  than  when  indi- 
viduals violate  it.  Its  disregard  by 
individuals  may  have  far-reaching  con- 
sequences. But  when  nations  set  it  at 
naught,  the  issues  are  certain  to  be  far- 
reaching  and  wide-sweeping,  involving 
not  hundreds  but  thousands  and  millions 
in  the  stream  of  devastation.  Now  that 
the  world  has  become  so  small,  now  that 
nations  touch  elbows  as  once  tribes  and 
individuals  did,  now  that  they  call  to 
each  other  out  of  their  windows  across 


29 


a narrow  stream  that  electricity  bridges 
in  an  instant,  and  jostle  one  another  in 
the  pubhc  highways  of  the  world,  the 
only  salvation  of  the  world  from  measure- 
less disaster  is  the  observance  of  the 
Golden  Rule  between  nations.  And  it  is 
more  practicable  between  nations  than 
between  individuals  because  nations 
act — ought  to  act  and  usually  do  act — 
with  more  deliberation,  less  under  the 
influence  of  sudden  passion  than  indi- 
viduals. Their  relations  are  defined  in 
compacts  which  they  have  solemnly 
bound  themselves  not  to  break,  and  not 
hastily  to  annul.  There  is  time  for 
sober  second  thought,  time  for  the  best 
thought  of  the  nation  to  be  brought  to 
bear  on  the  situation.  There  is  no 
excuse  for  haste.  But  we  must  train 
ourselves  to  think  and  deliberate,  and 
especially  must  train  ourselves  and  our 
nation  to  recognize  that  the  Golden 
Rule  is  the  supreme  law  of  nations — 
pre-eminently  adapted  to  nations,  its 
obedience  indispensable  to  their  welfare 
and  the  safety  of  the  world.  The 
Golden  Rule  is — it  is  the  only  rule  that 
is — workable  between  nations. 


30 


Nor  is  the  application  of  the  Golden 
Rule  between  nations  any  longer  the 
empty  vision  and  wild  dream  of  imprac- 
ticable idealists.  The  Great  War  by 
making  its  necessity  more  evident  has 
brought  it  within  the  range  of  men’s 
thoughts  and  within  the  realm  of  prac- 
tical politics  as  never  before.  Germany’s 
explicit  and  cold-blooded  repudiation  of 
all  altruistic  considerations  in  inter- 
national relationships  on  the  one  hand, 
and,  on  the  other,  the  equally  explicit 
affirmation  of  regard  for  the  welfare  of 
other  nations  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  and  the  United  States,  and  the 
not  less  significant  conduct  of  France 
and  Belgium,  have  exerted  a deep  and 
wide  influence  on  the  minds  of  men. 
Rarely  in  the  history  of  the  world,  it 
is  safe  to  affirm,  have  practical  state 
papers  put  forth  at  a critical  moment 
in  national  affairs  been  written  on  the 
high  moral  level  of  some  of  the  recent 
definitions  of  the  aims  of  Great  Britain, 
or  the  Golden  Rule  as  a principle  of 
statecraft  and  international  policy  been’ 
so  clearly  and  unequivocally  set  forth 
as  in  the  successive  addresses  in  which 


31 


President  Wilson  has  defined  the  aims 
of  the  United  States. 

It  is  an  hour  in  which  to  lift  up  our 
heads  with  pride  in  our  country  and 
hope  for  the  world.  If  from  this  awful 
struggle  it  shall  result  that  the  nations 
of  the  world,  or  even  a large  and  influ- 
ential group  of  them,  shall  come  to 
recognize  that  there  cannot  be  one 
morahty  for  the  family  and  another  for 
the  family  of  nations,  not  only  that 
nations  must  render  justice  to  one 
another,  but  that  only  as  they  cherish 
in  their  hearts  a spirit  of  kindness  and 
desire  for  one  another’s  welfare  and 
embody  it  in  their  conduct  can  they 
themselves  really  prosper — if  out  of  this 
war  shall  come  the  writing  of  the  Golden 
Rule  into  the  law  of  nations  as  its  funda- 
mental principle,  then  indeed  will  it 
have  been  worth  all  that  it  has  cost  and 
more. 

It  is  for  this  that  we  as  a nation  ought 
now  to  stand,  prepared  for  any  cost  and 
any  sacrifice  that  it  may  be  achieved. 
The  Golden  Rule  is  workable  between  na- 
tions. It  will  yet  become  the  recognized 
law  of  nations. 


32 


